Gujarat High Court
Shulabhi Uttam Verma vs State Of Gujarat on 30 November, 2021
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14463 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14463 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution No
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SHULABHI UTTAM VERMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BH KHER(6027) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED WANT OF TIM(31) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 30/11/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Sudhanshu Jha for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for respondent No.1-State, and learned advocate Mr.B.H. Kher for respondent Nos.2 and 3-Junagadh Agricultural University and College of Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 Agriculture. It was stated by learned advocates appearing for the parties that respondent No.4-Indian Council of Agricultural Research is a formal party, therefore the petition could be considered for decision therein in absence of the said respondent.
2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate the process of awarding degree of Ph.D. to the petitioner. It is therefore prayed to set aside order of the respondents cancelling the registration for Ph.D. of the petitioner. The petitioner has next prayed to declare the action on part of the respondent-Junagadh University in granting Grade-I to the petitioner to be illegal and contrary to the provisions.
3. Presently working as an Assistant Professor at Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University as an academically qualified person, petitioner had registered herself in the year 2009 as a student of Ph.D. with respondent No.3 Agricultural College under respondent No.2-Junagadh University. The petitioner was allotted Ph.D. Registration No.G- 4-00532-2009. The subject of research work of the petitioner was Gene expression of castor genetype using fungal infectino (Macrophomona phaseolina) and identification of disease resistant genes.
3.1 While continuing the research work for Ph.D. as above, petitioner came to be selected as an Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 Assistant Professor in 2012 in the Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada University. It is the case of the petitioner that at that juncture, she had completed most of the course for Ph.D. and was in the last semester. The petitioner could not complete the Ph.D. studies in view of her becoming Assistant Professor and that respondent No.2 cancelled the registration. It is stated by the petitioner that only few portions of her Ph.D. course was left out, and that she wanted to complete her Ph.D. studies. The Dantiwada University where the petitioner had joined, did not have any objection to the petitioner continuing the Ph.D. studies under respondent No.2 to complete the course. The said University addressed communication to respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to continue her research work and re-register the petitioner for Ph.D. making several requests pointing out that continuation of studies by the petitioner was permissible under the statutes and regulations.
3.2 It is not in dispute that post-graduate student in any degree programme can be re-registered within a period of three years in the same semester from which he or she had left. Respondent No.2 accepted the request of the petitioner for completion of her Ph.D. studies on 20th August, 2014. Petitioner completed the necessary procedures and rejoined the Ph.D. course. She submitted the kachha thesis and presentation. Her viva voce was also completed, she pleaded. What was next to follow was that respondent No.2 University was required to arrange the final viva voce, to allot pucca number thereof to the Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 thesis of the petitioner and to consider the case of the petitioner for awarding Ph.D. degree.
3.3 It is the say of the petitioner that post- presentation, that is, viva voce of the petitioner, after keeping the issue of awarding degree pending for long, issue of shortfall in attendance was raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3 cancelling the registration and denying the degree. It was stated that though the kachha thesis was submitted and petitioner was presented herself in the seminar, Grade-I was awarded to the petitioner in the marksheet. It is the case that Grade-I is given to such student where research work is incomplete, even though petitioner has completed all her research work including of submission of thesis. Thus, on the ground of shortfall in attendance, it being not upto 75% in the presentation, petitioner was declined the Ph.D. degree.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had undergone the entire studies and did the research work, her thesis was processed and forwarded further. It was further submitted that the issue of shortfall in attendance was wrongly raised as petitioner has attended seminars and even otherwise, it was not mandatory to attend the seminars. It is submitted that after the permission to rejoin the study was granted, petitioner completed the course and formalities before November, 2014 which suggested that there was no shortfall in attendance. It was submitted that Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 non-payment of fees was another ground raised, but the petitioner had already paid the fees for the seventh semester. It was lastly submitted that once the kachha thesis was forwarded, the question of cancellation of registration did not arise.
4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent University submitted on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, that in the Ph.D. course, the petitioner was required to clear eight semesters in total. The petitioner was needed to fulfill all the conditions of academic Regulation No.47.9 which prescribes the requirement for doctorate degree. According to the stand of the respondents, during the seventh semester, the petitioner left the University as she was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in the Dantiwada Agricultural University, due to which registration of the petitioner was cancelled.
4.2 In the affidavit-in-reply, it was admitted that respondent No.2 University permitted re- registration of the petitioner in seventh semester by office order dated 17th November, 2014 considering the academic career of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner opted the seminar subject of Biotech- 901 in the seventh semester and that under the said course, petitioner had to present one seminar on the subject selected by her on a particular topic. The schedule of seminars to be held from February, 2015 to March, 2015 notified by the Convener of Post- Graduate Seminar was made available to the students, Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 it was contended. It was the case that 80% attendance was compulsory for the P.G. students of all disciplines and 5% relaxation was available. According to the say of the respondents, petitioner presented herself for one seminar only on "Molecular Basis of Sex Determination in Dioecious Plants". However, she did not attend the other seminars. Accordingly, she was awarded Grade-I by order dated 30th May, 2015 along with other students, respondents submitted.
4.3 About acceptance of kachha thesis of the petitioner, it was sought to be stated in paragraph No.12 of the affidavit that petitioner made a false claim about acquiring academic requirements though she had not attended the seminars. It was contended thereafter that on account of non-clearance of seventh semester due to Grade-I in the subject of Biotech 901, kachha bound thesis of the petitioner was rejected. It was submitted that the ground put forth by the petitioner of medical reasons for being unable to attend the seminar in the course of Biotech 901 in the seventh semester did not inspire credibility for want of material in that regard.
4.4 Affidavit-in-rejoinder came to be filed by the petitioner to state that petitioner was throughout stayed within the campus, however on some occasions due to her medical conditions relating to pregnancy, she could not attend the seminars. It was claimed that there was no shortfall in attendance as sought to be made out. It was further submitted that Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 the rules which are relied on by respondent Nos.2 and 3 regarding requisite minimum attendance in the seminar are of the Krushi University, Dantiwada of the year 1997. It was submitted that these rules would not apply inasmuch as in the year 2004, the Gujarat Agricultural University, came to be divided into four different Universities, of which one of the universities is respondent No.2-Junagadh Agricultural University. It was stated that respondent No.2 University framed Regulations and the case of the petitioner would be governed by the said Regulations. The petitioner produced academic regulations of Junagadh University dealing with the award of Ph.D.
5. The document in the nature of Notification relating to seminar attendance and evaluation produced by respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with affidavit-in-reply in support of contentions about minimum requirements of the seminar is of the year 1997 and the same was issued by erstwhile Gujarat Agricultural University. A notice could be taken that Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 2004 was brought into force wherein four different universities out of Gujarat Agricultural University came to be constituted. The rules relied on regarding seminar attendance along with affidavit-in-reply by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was operative in the times when Gujarat Agricultural University was in existence and conducting the course. Be as it may.
5.1 Since the reliance is placed on the aforesaid Notification of 1997 which deal with Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 conditions to be fulfilled by the students taking seminar course, the same is extracting from Page No.130, hereunder.
"1. Student taking seminar course shall register with the course co-ordinator (Seminar).
2. Student shall submit typed/cyclostyled seminar script for circulation and also typed full seminar talk before scheduled date of seminar to the seminar co-ordinator.
3. Three P.G. teachers including Major Professor (to be appointed by Principal) shall evaluate the student giving marks out of 100 as per scorecard appended herewith (Appendix-'A').
Students scoring average 60 or more marks shall be awarded "S" grade, otherwise "US" grade. Students obtaining US grade shall be required to clear the seminar course in the subsequent semester but not in the same semester.
4. (A) Students registered for seminar course shall be required to attend minimum 60 percent of the total seminars delivered during that semester in which he/she has registered and minimum 70 per cent of the total seminars in the remaining semester of their study.
(B) Students whose attendance in seminar fall short of the requirement shall be awarded "I" grade for seminar and he/she will have to repeat in the subsequent semester.
(C) Students who have to forgo seminars due to their participation in sport, athletics and other c-curricular activities shall be counted as present for the purpose of calculating attendance requirement."
5.2 As against above, as produced in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, respondent No.2-Junagadh University is shown to have been practicing "Common Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 Rules for the Post Graduate Studies (i.e.) P.G. Diploma, Master and Doctorate Degree Programmes in the State Agricultural Universities of Gujarat"
framed in common by the Academic Councils of the Universities in exercise of powers under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 2004 and brought into force from the beginning of the first semester of the Academic Year 2014-15. Regulation 10 deals with doctorate degree programme. As per Regulation 10.1, the minimum duration of the doctorate degree programme shall be three academic years, divided into six semesters. Regulation 10.2 deals with minimum marks required for admission to Ph.D. programme in the respective subject. Regulation 29.1 speaks about re-registration to provide that all post graduate students who has successfully completed all requirements of two semesters may be re- registered within a period of three years at his own risk in the same semester from which he gave up his studies, provided however that no disciplinary action should have been taken against the student during his career in the college.
5.3 The re-induction of the petitioner to the Ph.D. course by granting her the re-registration is an accepted position. The petitioner came to be granted re-registration and was allowed to continue her Ph.D. studies from where she had left. Regulation 42 of the aforesaid Regulations deal with attendance requirement providing that every student shall attend all lectures etc. and that the teacher shall maintain a record of students' attendance. The candidates Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 shall require to attend 75% of the practicals/ lectures as per Regulation 42.3 The shortfall in the attendance upto 5% in a given course would be condoned, as provided in Regulation 42.4, by the concerned Principal of the college upon unavoidable circumstances.
5.4 Regulation 47.9 deals with doctorate degree. It reads as under.
"47.9 Doctorate Degree
(1) Requirement for the Ph.D. degree shall
include successful completion of
scientific investigation and
creditable research to be submitted in the form of a thesis, which must be original contribution to knowledge characterized either by the discovery of facts and their significance or by a new interpretation of facts or theories. In either case, it should evince the candidate's capacity for critical examination and sound judgment.
(2) The thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of Ph.D. degree shall be examined by the examiners (major and minor Guides) and two external referees appointed by the Dean of Post-Graduate Studies from a panel of five experts suggested by the Major Guide in consultation with Head of Department. The chairman of Student Advisory Committee shall be the Chairman of the Examining Committee.
The external referees shall be from outside the University.
(3) The referees shall evaluate the thesis and shall submit their report to the Dean of Post-Graduate Studies and Registrar under intimation to the Head of Department normally within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the thesis.
(4) In case, the reports of both the Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
external examiners are favourable, the thesis shall be considered for the award of the degree.
(5) If, in case of one of the external referees does not recommend the acceptance of the thesis, a third external referee from the same panel shall be appointed. If third referee also does not recommend the thesis for acceptance, the candidate shall be declared to have failed and no oral examination shall be conducted. If, both the external referees recommend acceptance of the thesis, the final oral examination shall be conducted by a committee consisting of the examiners and one of the external referees appointed by the Dean of Post-Graduate Studies and nominee of the Dean of Post-Graduate Studies."
5.5 Regulation 49 provides for thesis, viva voce examination, about making recommendation for acceptance of thesis, conducting of viva voce of Ph.D. student by the examining committee on the basis of report of the external examination. Regulation also provides for assessment for performance in the thesis viva voce by the examining committee and on the basis of the quality of thesis and the performance of the student, performance would be graded. The report of the examining committee will be forwarded by the Major Guide to the Head of the Department who, in turn, shall forward the same to the Registrar and the Dean. The procedure is, therefore, prescribed for processing the thesis viva voce of the Ph.D. candidate leading to award of the Ph.D. degree.
6. With the above position of sets of the Regulations in light, the factual matrix and merits Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 may be surveyed. On 16th November, 2013 the petitioner wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.2 University beseeching to permit her to rejoin the course stating inter alia that though Sardarkrushinagar University was ready to send her to complete the remaining portion of her Ph.D., respondent No.2 University had not been responding to the request. The petitioner was finally permitted to rejoin the Ph.D. course allowing her re-admission in the seventh semester in the month of November, 2014. The semester started in January, 2015. There would be no gainsaying that at the time when re-admission of the petitioner was permitted, the aforementioned common regulations which also dealt with conditions to undergo the Ph.D. course were in force.
6.1 From communication dated 04th May, 2015 (Page No.24 of the petition) it could be seen that Post Graduate In-charge and Major Guide Dr. B.A. Golakiya addressed letter to the external examiner for preliminary viva voce to be taken of the petitioner on 07th May, 2015. The examination committee members were also named. Viva voce of the petitioner was taken and by letter dated 07 th May, 2015 the report of the petitioner with result of the examination was forwarded to the Principal of respondent No.3 college (Page No.22). A letter dated 28th July, 2015 from the petitioner to respondent No.3-Principal figures on record (Page No.21), whereby the petitioner has submitted her kachha bound thesis through the Major Guide stating that the same was being sent after all the course work, preliminary Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 examination and research work. Major Guide of the petitioner-the Professor and Head, Department of Biotechnology, endorsed to the said letter stating that the remaining copies of the thesis will be submitted in due course in pucca bound on completion of the viva voce. No-due certificate was also enclosed. The Major Guide further stated that the petitioner gave her departmental seminar of her research work on 29th July, 2015. Thereafter Major Guide Dr.Golakiya addressed letter dated 28/29th July, 2015 (Page No.20) to the Registrar of the Sardarkrushinagar University stating that the petitioner was re-registered in the Ph.D. course and had submitted her kachha bound thesis on 28th July, 2015.
6.2 On 29th July, 2015 said Major Guide Dr.B.A. Golakiya by addressing communication to the Principal of respondent No.3 college enclosed proposal for panel of examiners for thesis evaluation of post- graduate student-the petitioner for onward transmission and necessary action. The proposal for penal examiners for thesis (Page No.16) indicated in its details that for the doctoral degree the date on which the written examination was taken for Major Field Paper-I, Major Field Paper-II and Minor Field Paper-III was 27th April, 2015, 27th April, 2015 and 28th April, 2015 respectively. It was mentioned that preliminary viva voce of the petitioner was conducted on 07th May, 2015, the expected date of submission of thesis was also mentioned as 30th August, 2015. About the course status, the proposal mentioned that the Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 "course work completed". Other requirements were also shown to have been cleared. The names of the Professor in the panel of examiners were listed.
6.3 It appears that thereafter since nothing transpired, petitioner made application on 03rd January, 2018 which was responded to by communication dated 12th February, 2018 from the Principal of respondent No.3 college reflecting the impugned decision.
6.4 The decision came to the surprise of the petitioner leading to filing of the present petition in which following was stated.
"To, Prof. Sulabhai Verma, Asstti. Professor, Deptt. Of Biotechnology College of Basic Science and Huminities, S.D.A.U., Sardar Krushinagar, Dist: Banaskantha.
Subject: Regarding completion of Ph.D. study...
Ref.: (1) Your application dated 03/01/18 (2)Professor and Head, Deptt. Of Biotechnology Letter No.JAU/Biotech/PG/2746-47/15, Dt.
03/08/2015 With reference to above subject and refered letter no.-1, your re-registration for Ph.D. study was done in November-2014. After re-registration, in second term of academic year 2014-15 your remaining course Biotech-901 (Major seminar) was taken by you, but because of shortfall in your attendance you are warded 'I' grade by this office letter no. No.JAU/PACJ/C.II/PG/4911-68/15 dt. 30/05/2015 in P.G. semester end examination June- 2015.
With reference to refered letter no.-2, you are instructed to paid the fees from July-2015 for second term and complete your course Biotech-901. But you are not paid your fees during the stipulated time duration and as per university letter no. JAU/Regi/Exam/Tech-1/5509-24/2015 dt.
Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 21/09/2015 your Ph.D. registration was canceled for second time.
In addition to this as per P.G. regulation no. 29.3, re-registration was granted for one time only, and now you can not done re-registration of your Ph.D. Degree as per university rules and regulation. This university has been informed to you wide letter no. JAU/Regi/Exam/T-1/2925-29/2017, dt.20/05/2017. Your application for continuation of Ph.D. study is not granted.
Now you are strickly instructed not to represent any application for this matter directly to this office."
7. Deducing the conspicuous relevant aspects from the facts and events narrated above, the petitioner was admittedly granted re-registration for he purpose of completing her Ph.D. course. She was re-admitted in the Academic Year 2014-15 under the Academic Regulations. Petitioner's re-registration was in the seventh semester as per order dated 17 th November, 2014 of respondent No.2 The petitioner was subjected to viva voce, she had prepared her kachha thesis which was submitted to the Major Guide. The Major Guide forwarded the same for further process. The panel of examinationers was also appointed and was to consider the thesis etc. for awarding of Ph.D. degree to the petitioner. There was no indication anywhere about petitioner having failed to attain the requisite standard or she having failed at any stage of her studies. Nor was such a case.
7.1 In the seventh semester, subject of Biotech 901 was opted by the petitioner for the purpose of seminar. The case of the respondent University is that Ph.D. pursuing students are required to remain present in the seminar and acquire knowledge through Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 group discussion and also through the presentation. The respondents did not process the case of the petitioner for Ph.D. degree on the ground that she had failed to achieve minimum 75% attendance in the said seminar course. When the Academic Regulations relating to the Ph.D. course and the conditions thereof are seen, the course is shown to be divided into six semesters. As per the sand, the seventh semester was of seminar. However, nowhere in the Regulations it could be specifically pinpointed that minimum 75% attendance for seminar was made condition precedent for awarding of Ph.D. degree. The attendance requirement in the common regulations brought into force for the respondent No.2-Junagadh University for Academic Year 2014-15 mentioned in Regulation 42.3 and that the attendance shall be counted from the date of commencement of the semester and that all candidates are required to be attend 75% of practicals/lectures. The shortfall was made condonable.
7.2 In any view, it is a specific case of the petitioner not denied by the respondents that during the seventh semester, the petitioner did stayed in campus and attended the seminars. However, since she was pregnant and was under medical supervision, she could not regularly attend the seminars in the same frequency as the other students may have attended. The petitioner has produced along with the rejoinder the medical papers evidencing her pregnancy status and the health check-up along with certificate of the maternity hospital. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 indeed expected to pay heed to the cause pleaded by the petitioner as above rather than brushing it aside on the spacious ground of want of material. The pedantic and wooden approach was not warranted in the facts of the case in processing the case for grant of Ph.D. degree to the petitioner who faced the reason of shortfall in attendance of seminars during her pregnancy period. It was a condonable case. The shortfall was required to be treated as curable defect.
7.3 In aforementioned communication dated 12th February, 2018, two reasons are advanced for rejecting the request of the petitioner for processing her case for Ph.D. award. First is about inadequate attendance in the Biotech seminar and secondly that she did not pay the fees from July, 2015 and completed course Biotech 901, as a result of which registration was cancelled for the second time. While the first ground is about requisite attendance stand too week to be approved in view of the aforesaid discussion, the non-payment of fees cannot be a governing factor for cancelling the registration.
7.4 The defects or infirmities when to be considered in the context of rights asserted by a party or in the evaluation of the validity of the decision of the authority could be viewed in two categories, the curable defects and non-curable defects. The non-curable defects or infirmities are those which go to the root of the issue and they Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 cannot be remedied. An attempt to remedy such non- curable infirmities would result into prejudice or a breach of law. On the other hand, curable defects are those which, in the facts of the case, could be made good without prejudicing the rights of the other party and by which substantial justice could be extended to a party without any material breach of law. Curable defects are in the nature of irregularities as against illegalities which become non-curable. The shortfall in attendance of seminar by the petitioner Ph.D. student, when viewed in light of the regulations which permit the condonation, when considered having regard to the cause of the petitioner that she was pregnant which status prevented her from regularly attending the seminars and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining, could be cured. The other ground of non-payment of fees is indeed curable. Both the defects on which the impugned decision is rested are curable defects which could be remedied, when the petitioner is found entitled to relief.
8. At the same time, it is the province of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 academic institutions to insist the completion of particular set of academic criteria for awarding the degree, in the present case, for considering the case of the petitioner for Ph.D. degree. When the respondents have viewed that petitioner was expected to match up the requisite attendance in the seminar presentation, the Court cannot disregard the same. Therefore, while granting relief to the petitioner, the petitioner will have to Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 be put to condition of completing the seminar presentation in the process of completing her Ph.D. research studies.
9. For the aforesaid discussion, reasons and consideration, the decision on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in cancelling the registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. course on the aforesaid ground of non-completion of attendance in the seminar as well as on the ground of non-payment of fees could not be countenanced. The same deserves to be set aside.
10. As a result, the following order.
(i) The decision of the respondent Nos.2 and 3reflected in communication dated 12th February, 2018 of respondent No.3-Principal in cancelling Ph.D. registration of the petitioner is set aside;
(ii) The decision reflected in communication dated 12th February, 2018 addressed by respondent No.2-Principal in rejecting the application-cum- request of the petitioner for continuation of Ph.D. studies is set aside;
(iii) The petitioner shall be permitted to pay the requisite fees, if any required to be paid, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment;
(iv) The kachchaa thesis already submitted by the petitioner shall be further processed and shall be Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 sent for evaluation as per the rules and procedure in that regard;
(v) The shortfall in attendance of the petitioner, in particular in respect of attending the seminars, shall be allowed to make good treating the same as curable defect;
(vi) If any other academic performance or syllabee is required to be observed by the petitioner in connection with her Ph.D. study and for award of the Ph.D. Degree, she shall be permitted to undergo the same;
(vii) The petitioner shall be allowed to attend the seminars as per the discretion and direction of the respondents to make up the shortfall as may be necessary;
(viii) It will be open for the University and the College to apply substituted academic criteria to be undergone by the petitioner if attendance of seminars by the petitioner is not possible;
(ix) The entire process leading to the appropriate decision in light of the facts obtained in accordance with law, and about awarding of Ph.D. Degree to the petitioner shall be concluded preferable within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
11. The petition is allowed in the terms of above order. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/14463/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021 terms.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of order of even date passed in the main Special Civil Application, no orders are required to be passed in the present Civil Application. It stands disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) ANUP Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:51:20 IST 2022